Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of masts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion seems really pointless. The best suggestion here seems to be "Delete all of the masts, except for ones that are at least somewhat notable." Great idea, but you can't seriously expect any closing admin to read through every article on the list and make a judgement call on the notability of all of them.

"Delete all the stubs" isn't a very good idea in my opinion either. A stub tag doesn't make an article non-notable, and the lack of one doesn't make a subject notable. And what about the short articles that just don't happen to have a stub tag on them? Does the fact that an article isn't tagged properly mean it's somehow better than one that has a stub tag?

Please take the time to figure out the articles that actually warrant deletion based on their own merit (you don't need to read through them all at once, nominate a bunch if you see fit). However, I don't see much point to that since the articles would be better as redirects than nothing anyway, so that they wouldn't be instantly recreated with little content. Anyone who thinks a mast isn't notable can still merge the article to list of masts and change it to a redirect. - Bobet 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of masts

This a special deletion request: The list of masts page has had one stub article created for every mast it lists. Instead of trying to delete each stub individually, I thought it would be more efficient to simply point to the page where they are all present. This deletion request is for these mast stub articles only and not the list of masts article. I hope this sitution warrants my bending the AfD process in this manner.

The reason for deletion of the mast stub articles is that all of the data in the stub articles is already present in the list of masts article, and very few, if any, are notable enough to be expanded or warrant a complete article. Unanimous support for these deletion has been reached on the list of masts talk page. --jwanders^Talk 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed eventhough this is probably not the place to discuss this. -- Koffieyahoo 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• While I agree that it would be a waste to have a separate AfD for each entry, some of these masts are individually notable. Keep all non-stub mast articles, keep all masts over 600 meters, which is a threshold height; keep any masts that can be shown to have been significantly involved in historical events, or which represent some famous or groundbreaking architectural development. Merge the rest into list of masts. bd2412 T 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the stubs. BD2412 -- Would you be willing to break out a list of the ones worth keeping? Maurreen 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, can't say that I would - not my area. bd2412 T 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all stubs to list of masts. They can be created when there's an actual article. A stub serves no purpose if it doesn't have more info than the list page. Ace of Sevens 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all stubs, no point for a redirect in most cases. A hint for whichever unfortunate soul has to sift through these to see which are stubs and which aren't--almost all of the articles created by these IPs with the word "Tower" in the headline are stubs.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Certainly more (dynamic) IPs were involved here, but at least this'll start you out. And at least you know to look for the 85.74.XXX.XXX range in March-April 2005. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of the masts, except for ones that are at least somewhat notable. They may be notable for extreme height, extreme height for the time it was built, extreme height for its type (guyed or freestanding), age, being an unusual type of mast, unusual usage or for being significant in some other way. I don't think that being the tallest or almost the tallest mast at the state level or lower should count, though. I'm not even sure if the country level should count, since there are so many countries. It would be even worse if we had articles on the top masts by country and by type, like the tallest freestanding and guyed masts in each country. The continent level would probably be fine, and it might help the problem described in the next sentence. In regards to keeping the masts over 600 meters tall, I have noticed that all 58 of them are in the United States and so are the 500 to 600 meter tall masts. There are only 5 non-U.S. masts in the 400 to 500 list. The 300 to 400 list is dominated by the U.S. at the top, but non-U.S. masts show up with increasing frequency at the bottom. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all stubs that aren't linked to from other articles (which would indicate relevancy)Lesqual 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Lesqual, good test of notability. I think we should set a high standard for mast notability -- collapsing and killing a guy is one. (And there's a separate article on the collapse, hmmm.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Mast articles were the subject of centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Uncle G 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Lesqual. wikipediatrix 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• General question to the above voters: is there any particular objection to merging, rather than deleting, these articles? It least valid latitude/longitude information should be maintained somewhere. bd2412 T 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merging is OK with me. My understanding was that the stubs had only the same information that is already on the list. Maurreen 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete -- title is ambiguous anyway; should be "List of Radio and Television Masts" or some such. Haikupoet 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all stubs. Redirects are too cheap not to employ when they make at least a little sense. Jacqui^★ 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Create a huge table. - Make a huge table of all the mast with the following columns: name of mast, country, place, geographical coordinates (not for all available), use (VLF, long wave, medium wave, FM, TV or other) and remarks. This would be a very compact way of keeping all informations on one site! No stub deletions, only redirects to the table! User: Zonk43
• NO!!! The problem is that virtually EVERY article here is officially a "stub". Even the KATV Tower article, which is probably among the ones NOT to be deleted (it's over 600 meters and is among the most-edited in the big list), is still labeled as a stub. I think the best solution to the problem is to mutually link the tower articles with those of the radio and TV stations that use them, which I did (before I registered) with the various stations of the Arkansas Educational Television Network and their towers (one of which is the KATV Tower). I also call your attention to the Arkansas Education Television Tower Fox article, which has a considerable amount of text even though the small Arkansas town it's named after doesn't even have an article! --RBBrittain 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all mast stubs What if you want to know about a mast? --Shanedidona 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the list! Vegaswikian 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of the articles and use the remarks section of the table for the extra information. If the stubs are deleted, then the article needs to be modified to remove all of the links to these articles. Links to the wiki articles and to the external links should be removed. Vegaswikian 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why delete? - are there no people of the USA, which can give further information of the masts in the USA?

And the stubs of masts from Europe, Afrique and other parts of the world, which make only a small part of them, should not be deleted at all, because there it is not always good to get information of them! Other idea: merge this table with the List of towers and add at this table a column with "construction type". This would be therefore sensitive, since there are borderline constructions as Gerbrandy Tower.

• Merge with List of towers! - this would give a very long list, but it would be a very interesting and very flexible online database of nearly all towertype constructions of the world!

If there is no space for databases in Wikipedia, then put the list, which is formed from List of masts and List of towers in Wikisource!

• Keep it or merge it with list of towers!
• Keep. I say keep them all. Many will probably only be recreated at some point in the future, so why go to all the (rediculous amount of) effort to delete something because it appears to have nothing worth notable about it other than it's size (to people like us who are unfamiliar with the subject), when people out there will know more and could make decnet articles. Hvaing the articles already in existence will encourage more people to add to them, rather than if we were now to delete them first. Also, the articles appear to include details such as coordinates, which isn't in the main list and would again be a very time cosuming and pointless job to merge into the list. Evil Eye 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.